Main menu

Monthly Archives: February 2015

We have expressed here our thoughts about the disastrous Presidential quest of Jeb Bush. Today we learn of another disqualification for the Presidency. On September 10, 2013 as Chairman of the National Constitution Center he awarded a medal in recognition of her public service to…Hillary Clinton. Details here and a video of the presentation here.

With the competition for the Republican presidential nomination heating up, we can expect a stepped-up payload of bad reporting. For example, you can read about a recent case of fraudulent reporting about Scott Walker from the New York Timeshere and here.

Now with the Brian Williams scandal front and center, we might be tempted to think that lack of accuracy and truthfulness are the main issues. However the problem with Williams and his fellow lefties is not just falsehoods or embellishments, nor is it limited to accepting sloppy research if it puts conservatives in a bad light. A major problem is their judgement about what is newsworthy. As the managing editor of NBC News Williams determined that the Benghazi cover-up, Solyndra, or the IRS targeting of conservative organizations leading up to the 2012 elections were just not very newsworthy and so were hardly reported at all. Stories important to Democrats were more numerous and often highlighted.

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

The big news from D.C. is the fight over funding the Federal Department of Homeland Security past the February 28 deadline. The House of Representatives passed legislation funding all of the Homeland Security Department, but prohibiting expenditures in furtherance of President Obama’s illegal executive actions creating amnesty. As this bill reached the Senate all 44 Democrat Senators and both of the two ‘Independents’ filibustered against it. Their action will effectively strip Homeland Security of all funding starting March 1. A minimum of five Democrats and one Independent had expressed concern over the illegality of the President’s amnesty. Yet despite their principled concern, they joined to form the 100% solid Democrat bloc. Details here and here.

This has happened time and again. Democrats act in unison, while Republicans almost never form a solid bloc. If there is to be compromise, the Democrats have the advantage. Ideally in compromise, each side brings forward the issues most important to it that might be acceptable to the other party. The result is a kind of win-win for the country. But when one party will not give in to the other, compromise means the Democrats get the permanent change they crave, while Republicans can barely manage to get something they want and then often only on a temporary basis. With the news media biased in favor of Democrats, they can now dishonestly claim regarding Homeland Security funding the Republicans are shutting down the government and perhaps win the opinion-poll wars. [See note 1 below.] Over time this leads to a ratcheting effect, with the Federal government drifting inexorably leftward. With a progressive President in power and the ability of the Federal government to bully states and localities by threatening to withhold Federal funding, we have a very dangerous situation. Congress should stand its ground.

In our view, the Republican Party needs to change. Not drastically, but substantially in several respects.

As if his stands on illegal immigration and on the Federal takeover of K-12 education known as Common Core were not enough, we now have this, in his own words:

“…it’s not possible in a free country to completely control the border without us losing our freedoms and liberties.”

Not only is this statement untrue, it is stupid. What? We would lose our liberty to emigrate to Mexico if the border were secure? We would be refused reentry into the US after a jaunt into Canada? Our Canadian neighbors do a decent job of securing their part of the border. We should do at least as much.

Any proposal for ‘fixing’ the immigration issue, to qualify for even cursory consideration, should in our opinion include three mandatory provisions, beyond tight border security.

Illegal immigrants should never have the right to become citizens and vote

They should never benefit from Federal welfare or preference of any kind

The system regulating legal immigration should be at least as rigorous as the new one in effect in Canada this year

Consider that Social Security benefits are tilted so that low-income beneficiaries receive much more than what they paid in. Illegals who used a fraudulent social security number should not receive this preference. Their benefits should be equal to what they paid in. Giving them a one-time lump sum instead of a monthly cash payment is one way to handle this problem. There are others. The issue of illegals already here brought over as children should be handled separately and must not be permitted to muddy the waters.

The new Canadian system for legal immigration is heavily weighted towards immigrants who will boost Canada’s economy and never be on welfare. According to the Globe & Mail, potential immigrants will be ranked as follows:

The Comprehensive Ranking System formula assigns a score of out [sic] 1,200 based on four elements: core factors such as age and education, spousal factors, skills transferability and whether or not a person already has a job offer or an invite from a provincial or territorial immigration program. That final factor gets an applicant an additional 600 points, which automatically leads to an invitation to apply.

The application is for permanent residency. The federal government will take care that immigrants do not take jobs Canadians could fill. The illiterate and unskilled will be intentionally filtered out.